Yvain and I played a battle, Steel Legion vs Ghazgkhull Warhorde. I still plan on posting a full battle report eventually but for now I'll talk about the Baneblade's performance.

Yvain fielded a single Baneblade and a single Shadowsword. They both hung out in the backfield laying down fire. The Shadowsword did some heavily lifting against the Ork Gargant, the Baneblade mostly laid down blast markers at long range and I think killed one Battlewagon.

It wasn't the best showing because it didn't exercise the mid-range shooting that makes the Baneblade worth taking, but it did give us a feel for what the two shot change means.

Our verdict was that:

- two shots on the main cannon is in no way broken or overpowered. It feels like a more reasonable amount of firepower for what should be a fearsome weapon. It makes the tank not feel like a waste at that range

- two shots on the main cannon does not feel like it's in line with the usual EA weapon stats. Yes the game is highly abstracted, but multiple shots are usually reserved for high ROF weapons

Now, I would stop there, but a very long debate with Yvain about whether 2 shots was appropriate at all, whether the Baneblade was hopelessly underpowered or not, and whether the Baneblade really needed a better Firefight value in addition (or instead) prompted me to lose my mind and mathhammer a comparison between the Baneblade and the Leman Russ at every range band. "Feeling" is not enough, I really wanted to know how this tank stacked up to a comparable unit and what this change would do to damage output.

Baneblade Vs. Leman RussI chose to compare the Baneblade to the Leman Russ for three reasons. First, they compete directly as company formations. Second, their durability is comparable (same armor, both have Reinforced Armor, the Baneblade Company is 15% cheaper per hit point and harder to suppress, but each Baneblade has a 1/6 chance of exploding every time it takes damage). Third, their armament is comparable (mostly battlecannons, lascannons, and heavy bolters). I used the stock Baneblade as a baseline and looked at two different updates: the 2 shot Baneblade battlecannon discussed here, and a single shot AP2+/AT2+ battlecannon instead.

Since the Leman Russ formation is widely regarded as worth taking, and since the overall durability and armament of the formations are comparable, I feel this is a worthwhile comparison (with the slow speed of the Baneblade being the main difference that isn't captured here). My feeling is that the Baneblade needs to put out equal or better damage than the Russ at most ranges on a point for point basis to make up for its slow speed.

MethodologyI did two separate comparisons from the Steel Legion list (singleton Baneblade vs 3x Leman Russ upgrade, and Baneblade Company vs Leman Russ Company). I calculated the distribution of possible numbers of hits, and normalized the results by point value for a fair comparison using the following formula:

Quote:

Normalized Hits = (# hits) * (normalized point value) / (point cost)

I also subtracted out 25 points from the price of the formations as an estimate of the cost of one activation. Note this makes the singleton Baneblade the exact same cost as the 3 Leman Russ upgrade. I did not capture the effects of Ignore Cover on the Baneblade's Demolisher shot.

Apologies in advance for the wall of plots.

Close Combat

Firefight

AP 0-30cm

AT 0-30cm

AP 31-45cm

AT 31-45cm

AP 46+cm

AT 46+cm

ConclusionsWhat we see from this is that

- the bog-standard Baneblade is, roughly speaking, equal to or worse than the Leman Russ everywhere except against INF targets at 0-30 cm range when taken as a company after normalizing for point cost (although a Baneblade Company is marginally better at Firefight on a point-for-point basis). The Baneblade gets significantly worse with range

- upping the battlecannon to AP2/AT2 barely improves the firepower of the Baneblade

- increasing the battlecannon to 2 shots at AP3/AT3 makes the Baneblade equal or better at every range band after normalizing for points - a Baneblade company is clearly better at AP and AT within 30cm, holds an advantage at AT at 31-45cm, and maintains parity at long range

So in the end, I have to say I support the 2 shot change. I think it makes the Baneblade Company an attractive choice, at least one you would consider over a Leman Russ Company. You're slower, but you're cheaper, and on a point-for-point basis you will put out more firepower at close range.

Based on these numbers, I would also recommend adding a single Baneblade as a formation upgrade for 175 points. Damage output from a single Baneblade is directly comparable to 3 Leman Russes, durability is comparable, and the speed synergizes well with an Infantry Company on foot.

Last edited by GrimDarkBits on Sat Mar 17, 2018 5:48 pm, edited 3 times in total.

It would be just as practical as the 175 point Leman Russ upgrade, if it had two shots on the battle cannon. But I guess if the LR upgrade sees little use already, then throwing in a BB option for the same price isn't helpful. What price would be reasonable for 3 LRs or 1 BB as an upgrade?

Suggests EUK upgrade prices would be better as a start with the rest coming down another 25pts on top of that, in which case the BB upgrade would be 150pts. I'd consider adding a BB to my Arty Company and put a Commissar inside making it a reasonable BTS

So I took a Baneblade Co for a spin last night against Dark Angels (UK). Pimped them out with a hydra and ogryns to make a beefy BTS and deter any raids by the Deathwing.

Unfortunately no time to record the whole game, but took notes of the BB performance.

Turn 1. Advanced out of deployment to fire at 31cm at some devastators overwatched on the halfway line in some woods. Banecannons did all the work, getting 3/6 hits on 4+, though my opponent made 2 saves. They took some return fire inc some doubling landraiders, leaving them with 2BM which they refused to shed in the rally phase.

Turn 2: My opponent slammed the mech Co guarding the BB flank with whirlwinds then wiped them in half with an assault with his SCo Ravenwing. However this left his dented RW (6 inf and light vehicles left) ripe for a kicking by the BB Up close and personal. The landraiders had shot at the BB again, taking a hit and leaving 5BM meaning one BB was suppressed.Singling to about 20cm, they let rip... and scored 5 hits, and only 1 save failed. Again the 2x shot banecannons being the saviour, scoring an 4 of those hits. Unfortunately having now broken ranks with their flank exposed and the RW still standing, the BB got cross fired by a second dev detatchement in land raiders. 4 hits, the first 3 of which saved, 4th splashing onto the commissar tank, and critted. They broke and scuttled back inside my castle, refusing to rally in the end phase.

Turn 3: hiding on my back line broken, they never looked in trouble to lose my BTS, but no further part in the battle and i lost 3:0.

On the whole, the 2 shots certainly made a difference - largely as i seemed unable to roll 5+ hits. The BB seemed much like a LRuss Co. Never as effective as you expect, but tough as old boots. Opponent agreed the change made them a little more effective, but nothing that really worried him. Main advantage was protecting my BTS objective as he only had terminators to really damage them and couldn't get in as i had them protected.

Will try them again without being BTS and see how that goes.

Must admit, i cant really see the utility of a BB upgrade over 200points for 7 chimera and the 30cm move, but can't see the harm in it either.

I dunno...it's mostly an issue with the Steel Legion themselves making upgrades questionably useful. Your core companies are just so effective without them already (aside from Hydra). I don't think I could justify swapping a Hydra Battery or Sentinel Squadron for adding a Baneblade somewhere.

400pts for Infantry Co.+BBlade, you can bully that Baneblade by plinking the infantry for BMarkers though it could spearhead to take the first few hits instead of the infantry. Not sure what it would DO as a formation at that point though aside from sitting in the deployment zone as a guard? 15cm move, no garrison.

That would compete with a mech inf. co, not sure it does well in the sheer usecases against that. Or against an Inf Co, plus fire support and a hydra, garrison on the half way line, in deep cover on overwatch.

Having the option doesn't hurt, just don't think it really makes the baneblade particularly desireable. The problem is that it's short ranged and slow so it almost always doubling to shoot if it also wants to be involved with fighting for objectives.

Their value increases when used in large war engine lists. 2 shadow sword companies, a baneblade company is 1500pts (plus hydras). 9 tough warengines allows you to divide attention exacerbating that toughness and stretching TK assets.

I've had the opportunity to test lone BBs and companies recently. I'm satisfied with the 2 shots but am still uncomfortable with their survivability. When they're up close the enemy and objectives (where they should be!) and you've invested time getting them there, a critical is far more.... um... critical in overall game terms than if a Shadowsword suffers one at extreme range..... and when Shadowsword gets a critical up close the attitude is "well it shouldn't have been there anyway!".

You rely on a Shadowsord's firepower rather than survivability, but with Baneblades there's just nothing all that reliable about them! I'm going to start testing a different crit result: "the Baneblade takes an extra point of damage" rather than "the Baneblade explodes" to see if this gives them a sufficient edge.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum